Skip to content

Conversation

afs
Copy link
Contributor

@afs afs commented Dec 21, 2024

Important:

RDF-Semantics has never referenced RDF-Concepts for "recognized datatypes".
It has its own definition dfn-recognized so no changes are necessary for RDF Semantics.

There are two places that cover accepting literals. One is for literals with unknown dataypes, section DatatypeIRIs and one is for known-to-be ill-typed literals. In RDF 1.1 they were MUST and SHOULD. In this PR, they are aligned as SHOULD. RDF Semantics provides further restrictions for D-entailment and it's definition of "recognized" datatype IRIs that has additional conditions.

This closes #122.
This closes #60.

Preview not depending on PR-Preview.


Preview | Diff

@afs afs marked this pull request as ready for review December 21, 2024 15:25
@afs afs force-pushed the recognized-datatype-iris branch from dbaa643 to b9e12c8 Compare December 21, 2024 15:30
@afs afs force-pushed the recognized-datatype-iris branch from b9e12c8 to 7b117a3 Compare December 21, 2024 15:32
@afs
Copy link
Contributor Author

afs commented Dec 21, 2024

cc @rdfguy

@afs afs changed the title Remove 'recognized datatype iri' in favor of RDF Semantics definition and use Remove 'recognized datatype IRI' in favor of RDF Semantics definition and use Dec 21, 2024
@afs afs added spec:enhancement Change to enhance the spec without affecting conformance (class 2) –see also spec:editorial spec:substantive Change in the spec affecting its normative content (class 3) –see also spec:bug, spec:new-feature and removed spec:enhancement Change to enhance the spec without affecting conformance (class 2) –see also spec:editorial labels Dec 21, 2024
@afs afs requested review from hartig, gkellogg and pchampin and removed request for hartig December 21, 2024 15:47
Copy link
Member

@TallTed TallTed left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Small, editorial, mostly punctuation

<li>if the literal's <a>lexical form</a> is in the <a>lexical space</a>
of datatype, then the literal value is the result of applying
the <a>lexical-to-value mapping</a> of the datatype to the
<a>lexical form</a>.</li>
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
<a>lexical form</a>.</li>
<a>lexical form</a>;</li>

Copy link
Contributor Author

@afs afs Jan 9, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

For reasons unknown, most (not all) bulleted lists in the doc have . on each list item. It would be better to deal with this separately because this PR is growing in scope already and I think keeping it as focused as possible will help get it accepted.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@afs afs force-pushed the recognized-datatype-iris branch 3 times, most recently from 88be4f4 to 61c8d58 Compare January 9, 2025 13:40
@afs afs force-pushed the recognized-datatype-iris branch from 61c8d58 to 55e77fa Compare January 9, 2025 13:42
@afs afs merged commit 48e52d2 into main Jan 9, 2025
2 checks passed
@afs afs deleted the recognized-datatype-iris branch January 9, 2025 17:59
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
spec:substantive Change in the spec affecting its normative content (class 3) –see also spec:bug, spec:new-feature
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

should Concepts include information about REQUIRED datatypes Drop the requirement to support ill-typed literals with recognized datatype IRIs
5 participants